Poll: Who Is Most Evil?
- Thread starter electric_warrior
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I feel I need to say Hitler since I'm jewish.
I wouldn't say Bush because he's an idiot. Cheney was the evil brain.
I wouldn't say Bush because he's an idiot. Cheney was the evil brain.
Ur mum
I know its a stupid joke but common, I wrote like 3 paragraphs on this like a month ago in someone else's thread. Repeating yourself is a *****
I know its a stupid joke but common, I wrote like 3 paragraphs on this like a month ago in someone else's thread. Repeating yourself is a *****
I think Stalin tops this list.
He killed millions, often for no real reason at all.
According to a book my history teacher is reading he ordered his sister-in-law to be killed when she was heading back to her home after a diner with Stalin.
A man who supported Stalin from the beginning who helped Stalin do nearly all of his evil plots who had a lot of power himself was suddenly stripped of his power and murdered.
And that's supposedly the tip of the iceberg.
He killed millions, often for no real reason at all.
According to a book my history teacher is reading he ordered his sister-in-law to be killed when she was heading back to her home after a diner with Stalin.
A man who supported Stalin from the beginning who helped Stalin do nearly all of his evil plots who had a lot of power himself was suddenly stripped of his power and murdered.
And that's supposedly the tip of the iceberg.
not really subjective .. word like good and evil were created back when people couldn't comprehend the complexity of human behaviour so they just labelled everything as best they could .. sadly this still seems to be the case with many peoplesallene said:
NOTHING is quite as simple as "good" or "evil" they're obsolete terms .. the more accurate and open ways to describe something along the lines are negative and positive because neither is absolute and each can be used to even describe the same action .... i won't go into epic depth coz i can go on all day mate haha
not really subjective .. word like good and evil were created back when people couldn't comprehend the complexity of human behaviour so they just labelled everything as best they could .. sadly this still seems to be the case with many peoplesallene said:
NOTHING is quite as simple as "good" or "evil" they're obsolete terms .. the more accurate and open ways to describe something along the lines are negative and positive because neither is absolute and each can be used to even describe the same action .... i won't go into epic depth coz i can go on all day mate haha
I think evil is too subjective to make a hard and fast rule on the rankings of evil (unless someone's actually managed to build the KiloNazi chart from OotS).
They're all dodgy enough that I'd gladly bust their skulls, and some could be seen as dodgier than others, but I don't think I'm able to rank or grade them any more than that.
They're all dodgy enough that I'd gladly bust their skulls, and some could be seen as dodgier than others, but I don't think I'm able to rank or grade them any more than that.
I went with Hitler becuase I barely know what Hitler, Stalin and Ceausescu did. Ceasescu shouldn't be on that list because he wasn't actually evil. He was just an egomaniacal shoe polisher with 4 grades (not kidding). He was a dictator and did a lot of stupid things like close the borders, ban religion and impose for people to live off of rations and propaganda, but he can't be called evil.
P.S: I'm not endorsing nor supporting his egomaniacal views.
P.S: I'm not endorsing nor supporting his egomaniacal views.
errmmm as a jew i should be obligated to say hitler or stalin. but though they are both creepy and retarded and self centered, i reserve true evil for those who deserve it, such as Master of the Darkside, Supreme Lich and Dark Sorcerer, Eater of babies and squisher of puppies,
Mr.Dick Cheney. he gives me the shivers even through the TV. and george w bush was nothing in my mind except for a sock puppet attached to cheney's hand, because no one would have voted that bastard for president.
Mr.Dick Cheney. he gives me the shivers even through the TV. and george w bush was nothing in my mind except for a sock puppet attached to cheney's hand, because no one would have voted that bastard for president.
I went with Pol Pot, his Khymer Rouge killed more people than Hitler and Stalin combined allegedly, and he was also specifically into making them suffer when he did it. We're talking systematic rape and murder. In general when it came to Hitler guys like Mengele did some gross experiments (and then there were the Japanese experimental groups) but they were a minority. For the most part Hitler either put them into hard labour, or quickly and efficiently killed them. It should be noted that there were a LOT of Holocaust Survivors
who still had the tattooed marks and such. While American propaganda is very anti-Hitler and remained, I think Pol Pot was far, far worse and in general I don't think there were many survivors from his death camps by definition.
There is also a matter of degree. See Hitler had a lot of good points, if he didn't take things to the point of mass murder you could almost agree with him. People forget he had a LOT of American supporters and was Time magazines "Man Of The Year". He had even more support in countries like France which is why he was able to occupy them and still engage in conquest. This is the dude who killed six million Jews, but he's also the visionary who predicted "one day everyone will have a Volkswagon" (or basically, eventually everyone
would own a car and drive. People will of course probably yell at me and call me a Nazi (it's happened before), I am not, I simply believe that the best way to prevent history from repeting itself is to properly understand it. Propaganda turned Hitler into this sociopathic monster, in reality he was nothing like the common conception which is why he was so bloody scary in retrospect.
Pol Pot on the other hand had very little to redeem him, and was probably closer to the American propaganda version of Hitler than Hitler was. Where Hitler was trying to build a better world, and had a lot of good ideas (industrially and economically, I'm not talking about his social "policies" ) Pol Pot was mostly a really angry dude who felt that the
"City Dwellers" were corrupt and that the rural "farming class" should be in charge. However he took it beyond a transition of power/workers revolt and more into the land of payback and extermination of pretty much anyone he didn't like. Overall other than killing people he didn't seem to have much in the way of valid plans for Cambodia, so turned it into a horror show. Hitler could run things and provide a pretty safe and stable enviroment, provided of course you were his kind of people (ie not Jewish, a Gypsy, or Gay... and preferably as white as possible with a large cranium. Blue eyes and Blonde hair preferred for high ranking positions.. as I said his social policies were borked to say the least).
Stalin and his Gulags were pretty bad, but generally speaking he did a lot of the things he did for some decent reasons when taken within context. See basically you had this guy called "Lenin" who basically developed the modern ideal of Socialism/Communism. When he wound up taking over it was rapidly found that the society he envisioned could not work, as no matter what your ideals are you only have so many resources, and at the end of the day the majority of people are going to be unhappy labourers who are going to do hard work for little payoff. Stalin "The Steel Angel" pretty much took the reins for Lenin and tried to save Russia from the collapse that was about to occur. See Communism/Socialism is a bad thing and at that point the only choices were to let everything collapse into an anarchistic mess, or for someone to basically force things into the needed order with an iron fist.
So Stalin basically went around and forced an underclass and an overclass (the socialist goverment) loosely based on Lenin's philsophy, and despite what the entire point of the people's revolution was. He killed a lot of people, but his Gulags were basically about re-education. Basically the idea being that if you abuse people enough you can force them to conform to what you need for society. It worked to a great extent as terrifying as it was.
Despite being a monster, he was the monster the time demanded (arguably). Lenin can sort of be seen as the father of the philsophy behind Communist Russia, Stalin was the one who brought order to that system to prevent it from immediatly collapsing. Leninism vs. Stalinism can be interesting especially viewed in the context of what was happening there at the time.
At any rate though, the whole Lenin/Stalin thing is a part of why I have so little respect for Communism/Socialism. It's always a popular idea with the people at the bottom of the food chain, but those people wind up supporting it assuming that they will have better lives. No matter what kind of goverment you still need those people at the bottom to do the grunt work and take out the trash. At least in a capitolist society you have the abillity to advance based on personal abillity, where in a communist or socialist society your abillity to advance is largely dependant on the will of those above you in the totem pole (more so than it is otherwise). You can be the smartest guy around, but if they only need so many doctors, and the goverment administrator decides to make his brother a Doctor instead of you, your SooL. This is in part why Russia became reknowned for poor quality/training/etc... in the US the best people wind up doing the jobs, in Russia it was about politics as much as possible. A high ranking officer might be a total furball with family in the right places. While this happens in the US too, it was less of a big deal society-wide.
Some are going to disagree, accuse me of "misinformation", or whatever else, but that is what I think.
At any rate, I think the most monsterous of the bunch is Pol Pot because he had the least redeeming reasons for doing what he did, and did not seem to have any real plan except killing a lot of people and somehow expecting places like Cambodia to magically transform into a wonderland as a result. Stalin was trying to keep a society based on some ideas that were good on paper, but impractical on paper, from collapsing. Hitler has a lot of good economic plans that probably could have been implemented had he united humanity under one banner and would have worked... for those he didn't annihilate as lower forms of humanity.
>>>----Therumancer--->
who still had the tattooed marks and such. While American propaganda is very anti-Hitler and remained, I think Pol Pot was far, far worse and in general I don't think there were many survivors from his death camps by definition.
There is also a matter of degree. See Hitler had a lot of good points, if he didn't take things to the point of mass murder you could almost agree with him. People forget he had a LOT of American supporters and was Time magazines "Man Of The Year". He had even more support in countries like France which is why he was able to occupy them and still engage in conquest. This is the dude who killed six million Jews, but he's also the visionary who predicted "one day everyone will have a Volkswagon" (or basically, eventually everyone
would own a car and drive. People will of course probably yell at me and call me a Nazi (it's happened before), I am not, I simply believe that the best way to prevent history from repeting itself is to properly understand it. Propaganda turned Hitler into this sociopathic monster, in reality he was nothing like the common conception which is why he was so bloody scary in retrospect.
Pol Pot on the other hand had very little to redeem him, and was probably closer to the American propaganda version of Hitler than Hitler was. Where Hitler was trying to build a better world, and had a lot of good ideas (industrially and economically, I'm not talking about his social "policies" ) Pol Pot was mostly a really angry dude who felt that the
"City Dwellers" were corrupt and that the rural "farming class" should be in charge. However he took it beyond a transition of power/workers revolt and more into the land of payback and extermination of pretty much anyone he didn't like. Overall other than killing people he didn't seem to have much in the way of valid plans for Cambodia, so turned it into a horror show. Hitler could run things and provide a pretty safe and stable enviroment, provided of course you were his kind of people (ie not Jewish, a Gypsy, or Gay... and preferably as white as possible with a large cranium. Blue eyes and Blonde hair preferred for high ranking positions.. as I said his social policies were borked to say the least).
Stalin and his Gulags were pretty bad, but generally speaking he did a lot of the things he did for some decent reasons when taken within context. See basically you had this guy called "Lenin" who basically developed the modern ideal of Socialism/Communism. When he wound up taking over it was rapidly found that the society he envisioned could not work, as no matter what your ideals are you only have so many resources, and at the end of the day the majority of people are going to be unhappy labourers who are going to do hard work for little payoff. Stalin "The Steel Angel" pretty much took the reins for Lenin and tried to save Russia from the collapse that was about to occur. See Communism/Socialism is a bad thing and at that point the only choices were to let everything collapse into an anarchistic mess, or for someone to basically force things into the needed order with an iron fist.
So Stalin basically went around and forced an underclass and an overclass (the socialist goverment) loosely based on Lenin's philsophy, and despite what the entire point of the people's revolution was. He killed a lot of people, but his Gulags were basically about re-education. Basically the idea being that if you abuse people enough you can force them to conform to what you need for society. It worked to a great extent as terrifying as it was.
Despite being a monster, he was the monster the time demanded (arguably). Lenin can sort of be seen as the father of the philsophy behind Communist Russia, Stalin was the one who brought order to that system to prevent it from immediatly collapsing. Leninism vs. Stalinism can be interesting especially viewed in the context of what was happening there at the time.
At any rate though, the whole Lenin/Stalin thing is a part of why I have so little respect for Communism/Socialism. It's always a popular idea with the people at the bottom of the food chain, but those people wind up supporting it assuming that they will have better lives. No matter what kind of goverment you still need those people at the bottom to do the grunt work and take out the trash. At least in a capitolist society you have the abillity to advance based on personal abillity, where in a communist or socialist society your abillity to advance is largely dependant on the will of those above you in the totem pole (more so than it is otherwise). You can be the smartest guy around, but if they only need so many doctors, and the goverment administrator decides to make his brother a Doctor instead of you, your SooL. This is in part why Russia became reknowned for poor quality/training/etc... in the US the best people wind up doing the jobs, in Russia it was about politics as much as possible. A high ranking officer might be a total furball with family in the right places. While this happens in the US too, it was less of a big deal society-wide.
Some are going to disagree, accuse me of "misinformation", or whatever else, but that is what I think.
At any rate, I think the most monsterous of the bunch is Pol Pot because he had the least redeeming reasons for doing what he did, and did not seem to have any real plan except killing a lot of people and somehow expecting places like Cambodia to magically transform into a wonderland as a result. Stalin was trying to keep a society based on some ideas that were good on paper, but impractical on paper, from collapsing. Hitler has a lot of good economic plans that probably could have been implemented had he united humanity under one banner and would have worked... for those he didn't annihilate as lower forms of humanity.
>>>----Therumancer--->